Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 37 / Monday, February 26, 2007 / Notices 8383 

5The term ‘‘authentication’’ generally means the 

process of ensuring that an individual is who she 

or he claims to be. However, this process is more 

easily understood as comprising two distinct steps. 

The first step is the identification of an individual 

at the onset of the relationship between the 

individual and the verifying entity (e.g., an 

individual’s identity will be verified when he or she 

applies for a passport or opens a financial account). 

The second step is the reaffirmation that the 

individual is the same individual whose identity 

was initially verified (e.g., the individual’s passport 

is checked when he or she travels in or out of the 

country or the individual provides a password or 

other credentials to the financial institution when 

accessing an existing account). Although different 

terms can be applied to these steps, the first step 

is often labeled verification and the second step, 

particularly with respect to online environments, is 

often labeled authentication. For greater clarity, 

these distinctions are used in the invitation for 

comment section set forth herein. 

which identity theft can be prevented 

through better authentication of 

individuals.5 The workshop will 

facilitate a discussion among public 

sector, private sector, and consumer 

representatives and will focus on 

technological and policy requirements 

for developing better authentication 

processes, including the incorporation 

of privacy standards and consideration 

of consumer usability. 

To help in planning for the workshop, 

the FTC invites comments on ways to 

improve authentication processes in 

order to reduce the incidence of identity 

theft, including but not limited to, 

comments on the issues and topics set 

out below: 

1. Establishing Identity—Understanding 

Verification Processes 

• In what ways can identities be 

established? How can individuals prove 

their identities when establishing them 

in the first instance? 

• Please comment on the strengths 

and weaknesses of relying on traditional 

identification documentation or 

credentials such as birth certificates, 

Social Security cards, driver’s licenses, 

and passports. 

• Please comment on the strengths 

and weaknesses of new or emerging 

tools for establishing individuals’

identities. Examples may include 

consumer information databases, which 

can be used to confirm whether a name 

and other personal information (e.g., 

Social Security number) belong 

together, and fraud detection software, 

which can be used to identify 

anomalous patterns or behaviors that 

may signal use of a false identity. 

• What roles should the public sector 

or the private sector have in establishing 

identification credentials? Within the 

public sector, what roles should 

different levels of government (i.e., 

federal, state, local) have in establishing 

identification credentials? 

2. Confirming the Established Identity— 

Current or Emerging Use of 

Authentication Technologies or 

Methods 

• What are some current or emerging 

authentication technologies or methods 

(e.g., biometrics, public key 

infrastructure, knowledge-based 

authentication) for confirming 

established identities? Describe the 

contexts in which they may be used and 

their strengths and weaknesses. 

• Please comment on the concept of 

multifactor authentication and how it is 

being or should be applied. 

• To what extent are consumer 

information databases being used to 

authenticate individuals? One example 

of such use is to support knowledgebased authentication tools, which 

generate questions the answers to which 

only the consumer would know. 

• To what extent do current or 

emerging authentication technologies or 

methods incorporate or rely on readily 

available identification information, 

such as Social Security numbers? How 

might such reliance affect the risk of 

identity theft? 

• To what extent do these 

technologies or methods meet consumer 

needs, such as ease of use? To what 

extent do these technologies or methods 

raise privacy concerns, including 

concerns about the tracking and 

profiling of an individual’s movements 

or transactions by the public or private 

sector? 

3. Comparing Verification and 

Authentication Systems 

• What are some of the different 

models for verification and 

authentication systems? Please 

comment on their strengths and 

weaknesses. For example, what are the 

relative merits of a centralized 

identification system where a single or 

a limited number of organizations 

identify all individuals and issue 

credentials that other entities can rely 

upon versus a decentralized 

identification system where each 

organization develops its own 

procedures and separately verifies and 

authenticates the individuals with 

which it is involved? 

• In considering the relative merits of 

different systems, please comment on: 

Æ Consumer acceptance and to what 

degree consumer education may 

facilitate such acceptance; and 

Æ Any privacy concerns including 

issues raised with respect to data 

collection, use, and storage. 

• In addition to reducing identity 

theft, how might better systems or 

processes for proving claims of identity 

generate other consumer benefits (e.g., 

providing access to various commercial 

or government services)? 

• How are other countries addressing 

verification and authentication issues, 

particularly as the issues relate to 

identity theft? What lessons can be 

learned? 

4. Upcoming Challenges in 

Authentication 

• As technologies converge to allow 

consumers to conduct financial or other 

sensitive transactions in new ways, how 

can appropriate authentication 

processes or technologies be 

incorporated to ensure that consumers 

receive the intended benefits of these 

advances without exposing them to new 

vulnerabilities? 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–3238 Filed 2–23–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Office of the Secretary 

[Document Identifier: OS–0990–0000] [60- 

day notice] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS. 

In compliance with the requirement 

of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 

Office of the Secretary (OS), Department 

of Health and Human Services, is 

publishing the following summary of a 

proposed collection for public 

comment. Interested persons are invited 

to send comments regarding this burden 

estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including any 

of the following subjects: (1) The 

necessity and utility of the proposed 

information collection for the proper 

performance of the agency’s functions; 

(2) the accuracy of the estimated 

burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and (4) the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology to 

minimize the information collection 

burden. 

Type of Information Collection 

Request: New collection. 

Title of Information Collection: 

Understanding Barriers and Successful 

Strategies for Faith-Based Organizations 

in Accessing Grants. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
8384 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 37 / Monday, February 26, 2007 / Notices 

Form/OMB No.: 0990–

Use: The ‘‘Understanding Barriers and 

Successful Strategies for Faith-Based 

Organizations in Accessing Grants’’

study aims to complement internal 

Health and Human Services (HHS) 

efforts to provide equal access to federal 

discretionary grants for faith-based 

organizations by collecting information 

directly from such organizations on 

their experiences applying for federal 

grants. 

Frequency: Single time. 

Affected Public: Not-for-profit 

institutions. 

Annual Number of Respondents: 290. 

Total Annual Responses: 290. 

Average Burden per Response: 35.3 

minutes. 

Total Annual Hours: 170. 

To obtain copies of the supporting 

statement and any related forms for the 

proposed paperwork collections 

referenced above, e-mail your request, 

including your address, phone number, 

OMB number, and OS document 

identifier, to 

Sherette.funncoleman@hhs.gov, or call 

the Reports Clearance Office on (202) 

690–6162. Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collections must be 

received with 60 days, and directed to 

the OS Paperwork Clearance Officer at 

the following address: Department of 

Health and Human Services, Office of 

the Secretary, Assistant Secretary for 

Resources and Technology, Office of 

Resources Management, Attention: 

Sherrette Funn-Coleman (0990–NEW), 

Room 537–H, 200 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201. 

Dated: February 15, 2007. 

Alice Bettencourt, 

Office of the Secretary, Paperwork Reduction 

Act Reports Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. E7–3175 Filed 2–23–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4154–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Office of the Secretary 

[Document Identifier: OS–0990–0243] [60- 

day notice] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS. 

In compliance with the requirement 

of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 

Office of the Secretary (OS), Department 

of Health and Human Services, is 

publishing the following summary of a 

proposed collection for public 

comment. Interested persons are invited 

to send comments regarding this burden 

estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including any 

of the following subjects: (1) The 

necessity and utility of the proposed 

information collection for the proper 

performance of the agency’s functions; 

(2) the accuracy of the estimated 

burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and (4) the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology to 

minimize the information collection 

burden. 

Type of Information Collection 

Request: Extension. 

Title of Information Collection: OCR 

Pre-grant Data Request Form. 

Form/OMB No.: 0990–0243. 

Use: The form is designed to collect 

data from health care providers who 

have requested certification to 

participate in the Medicare program. 

This civil rights compliance 

determination is an essential component 

of HHS’ decision to grant or deny 

certification and must be made prior to 

the Department’s final notification of its 

decision to the provider. 

Frequency: Recordkeeping single 

time. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit. 

Annual Number of Respondents: 

3,500. 

Total Annual Responses: 3,500. 

Average Burden per Response: 15 

hours. 

Total Annual Hours: 52,500. 

To obtain copies of the supporting 

statement and any related forms for the 

proposed paperwork collections 

referenced above, e-mail your request, 

including your address, phone number, 

OMB number, and OS document 

identifier, to 

Sherette.funncoleman@hhs.gov, or call 

the Reports Clearance Office on (202) 

690–6162. Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collections must be 

received with 60-days, and directed to 

the OS Paperwork Clearance Officer at 

the following address: Department of 

Health and Human Services, Office of 

the Secretary, Assistant Secretary for 

Resources and Technology, Office of 

Resources Management, Attention: 

Sherrette Funn-Coleman (0990–0243), 

Room 537–H, 200 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington DC 20201. 

Dated: February 15, 2007. 

Alice Bettencourt, 

Office of the Secretary, Paperwork Reduction 

Act Reports Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. E7–3177 Filed 2–23–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4153–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Toxicology Program (NTP); 

Center for the Evaluation of Risks to 

Human Reproduction (CERHR); 

Announcement of the Availability of 

the Hydroxyurea Expert Panel Report; 

Request for Public Comment 

AGENCY: National Institute of 

Environmental Health Sciences; 

National Institutes of Health, HHS. 

ACTION: Request for comment. 

SUMMARY: CERHR announces 

availability of the hydroxyurea expert 

panel report by March 5, 2007 on the 

CERHR Web site (http:// 

cerhr.niehs.nih.gov) or in print from 

CERHR (see ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ below). This 

expert panel report is an evaluation of 

the reproductive and developmental 

toxicity of hydroxyurea conducted by a 

13-member expert panel composed of 

scientists from the Federal Government, 

universities, and private organizations. 

CERHR invites the submission of public 

comments on this expert panel report. 

DATES: The final hydroxyurea expert 

panel report will be available by March 

5, 2007, and written public comments 

on this report should be received by 

April 18, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Public comments and any 

other correspondence should be sent to 

Dr. Michael D. Shelby, CERHR Director, 

NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233, MD EC–32, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

(mail), (919) 316–4511 (fax), or 

shelby@niehs.nih.gov (e-mail). Courier 

address: CERHR, 79 T.W. Alexander 

Drive, Building 4401, Room 103, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Hydroxyurea is used in the treatment 

of cancer, sickle cell disease, and 

thalassemia. It is the only treatment for 

sickle cell disease used in children 

aside from blood transfusion. 

Hydroxyurea may be used in the 

treatment of children and adults with 

sickle cell disease for an extended 

period of time or for repeated cycles of 

therapy. Treatment with hydroxyurea 

may be associated with cytotoxic and 

myelosuppressive effects and 

hydroxyurea is mutagenic. Hydroxyurea 

is FDA-approved for reducing the 

frequency of painful crises and the need 

for blood transfusions in adults with 

sickle cell anemia who experience 

recurrent moderate to severe crises. 

CERHR selected hydroxyurea for expert 

panel evaluation because of (1) 

increasing use in the treatment of sickle 

cell disease in children and adults, (2) 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES